If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

aka Wot I Think. As worried as I am that I might be criticizing individuals and not just their words, you've just proven that all I can do is criticize both.

Originally Posted by Faldrath

when a review makes you see something you had missed, then it's valuable

Yes, unquestionably, and I love being wrong because I get to learn something new and become a more powerful person. It's when they fail to consider something important to me that I question whether I belong in the journalist's audience.

Thing is, without knowing the thought process behind the decision making , you end up being badly placed to make an informed comment about it.

I've stated many a time that the structure of corporate investment that emphasizes short-term profits has a deleterious effect on long-term growth. They're consistent for a reason, and you don't need to be a goddamn conspiracy theorist to think so. But go ahead, tell me how much better informed you are.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

I've stated many a time that the structure of corporate investment that emphasizes short-term profits has a deleterious effect on long-term growth. They're consistent for a reason, and you don't need to be a goddamn conspiracy theorist to think so. But go ahead, tell me how much better informed you are.

But as has been pointed out before in previous threads you can't apply a flat rule to the actions of corporations. The motivators and actions of a corporation chasing Oil are a lot different than those of a corporation chasing your entertainment dollars. If EA don't invest in new product then their sales go down, because they are in competition with other publishers and other media for your leisure money. Most of the money they make gets ploughed back into making new product, and their new products needs to be of a standard/quality that will entice you.

But as has been pointed out before in previous threads you can't apply a flat rule to the actions of corporations. The motivators and actions of a corporation chasing Oil are a lot different than those of a corporation chasing your entertainment dollars. If EA don't invest in new product then their sales go down, because they are in competition with other publishers and other media for your leisure money. Most of the money they make gets ploughed back into making new product, and their new products needs to be of a standard/quality that will entice you.

Incorrect sir! The new product needs only to be a giant pile of shit with a franchise slapped on it and topped with copious amounts of marketing hype! It's true.

I agree with most of what Nalano has said, the "big box" publishers are pretty consistent in their raping of consumers.

Yeah, I mean at this point I kind of consider any developer owned by or under some kind of exclusive contract with one of the big developers to be one in the same (i.e. I draw no distinction between Bioware and EA or DICE and EA anymore).

Furthermore, the games are not inconsequential, nor is everybody saying they're an innocent pastime. That's "kinda the point." When you have long debates over corporate attitudes towards consumers on topics like monetization of assets previously perceived to be free, or the balance between anti-piracy restrictions and customer support, or the walled gardens of platforms and pseudo-platforms and the effect that has on game quality, or the bias and prejudice inherent in game imagery when it comes to gender, ethnicity or simple preconceived notions, or the desensitization to violence and the immature manner in which such a problem is handled, or the ethics of marketing "free" games to small children, or the entrenched labor issues in the current entertainment industry, or the pseudosocial nature of multiplayer games and the obesity epidemic tied to passive pastimes, or, yes, whether games are art...

Incorrect sir! The new product needs only to be a giant pile of shit with a franchise slapped on it and topped with copious amounts of marketing hype! It's true.

It's true? Really, is that the best attempt at a counterpoint you can raise? A simple 'no, you are wrong!!!. I'm afraid you're going to have to do a tad more than claim everything is terrible in order to convince me that your belief holds any merit.

I agree with most of what Nalano has said, the "big box" publishers are pretty consistent in their raping of consumers.

'Raping of consumers'? Game prices haven't gone up for years, yet production values and development team sizes have. Please explain this, but with maybe less reaching for the hyperbole dictionary.

Also Nalano made one statement about corporations, so I'm not getting how you can agree with most of what he says. You either agree or you disagree.

It's true? Really, is that the best attempt at a counterpoint you can raise? A simple 'no, you are wrong!!!. I'm afraid you're going to have to do a tad more than claim everything is terrible in order to convince me that your belief holds any merit.

'Raping of consumers'? Game prices haven't gone up for years, yet production values and development team sizes have. Please explain this, but with maybe less reaching for the hyperbole dictionary.

Also Nalano made one statement about corporations, so I'm not getting how you can agree with most of what he says. You either agree or you disagree.

Game quality has gone down significantly in the last few years. Have you even played any of the major releases this year? Games like ME3, ToR, etc, etc, etc? ME3 is the third in a series and came out however many years after the first one and yet is dumbed down to the point that it's not even an RPG anymore. It's a third person action game with interactive cutscenes. ToR was just a pile of shit.

Game prices HAVE gone up and that is what you are missing. The base price of a retail game hasn't change all that much since this current generation began (although the $59.99 PC game thing is pretty recent). However, game companies have found new and "exciting" ways to take your money with DLC, microtransactions, and the big one SEQUELS.

Yup, sequels. What was that about development team sizes and production values? Does it have anything to do with reusing assets and pumping out slightly altered versions of the same game every year? Yeah, that. That is raping consumers. They don't need to build long lasting quality games, they will just force feed you another one in 12 months, of course that is after they sell you six map packs for the low, low price of $14.99.

Nah, you are right after all, the game companies are in it for the gamers man... they are doing it for the ART!

Game quality has gone down significantly in the last few years. Have you even played any of the major releases this year? Games like ME3, ToR, etc, etc, etc? ME3 is the third in a series and came out however many years after the first one and yet is dumbed down to the point that it's not even an RPG anymore. It's a third person action game with interactive cutscenes. ToR was just a pile of shit.

I don't get the impression you understand what quality is tbh. If the height of your criticism is 'it's a pile of shit' I'm not sure you're really able to articulate the concept.

Game prices HAVE gone up and that is what you are missing. The base price of a retail game hasn't change all that much since this current generation began (although the $59.99 PC game thing is pretty recent). However, game companies have found new and "exciting" ways to take your money with DLC, microtransactions, and the big one SEQUELS.

Yup, sequels. What was that about development team sizes and production values? Does it have anything to do with reusing assets and pumping out slightly altered versions of the same game every year? Yeah, that. That is raping consumers. They don't need to build long lasting quality games, they will just force feed you another one in 12 months, of course that is after they sell you six map packs for the low, low price of $14.99.

Doom cost my parents £50 at release. Rage cost me £30 umpteen years later. Game prices have gone down over time. DLC, map packs, etc etc are all there if you want them, but they aren't necessary requirements. Also pretty sure sequels have been around for years and it's not a recent phenomena. Sequels are fairly common place across most media.

Nah, you are right after all, the game companies are in it for the gamers man... they are doing it for the ART!

Pretty sure developers make games because they like games and are enthusiastic about games. The 'is it art?' question isn't part of the equation.

Feel free to rant some more. Maybe throw some more 'it's all shit' in there.

I don't get the impression you understand what quality is tbh. If the height of your criticism is 'it's a pile of shit' I'm not sure you're really able to articulate the concept.

Doom cost my parents £50 at release. Rage cost me £30 umpteen years later. Game prices have gone down over time. DLC, map packs, etc etc are all there if you want them, but they aren't necessary requirements. Also pretty sure sequels have been around for years and it's not a recent phenomena. Sequels are fairly common place across most media.

Pretty sure developers make games because they like games and are enthusiastic about games. The 'is it art?' question isn't part of the equation.

Feel free to rant some more. Maybe throw some more 'it's all shit' in there.

I'm not going to write an entire critique of ToR to prove a point. The game was terrible, it was unfinished and full of bugs, as are MOST games that come out these days. Quality is not releasing games that are still in a beta state and fixing it months later with patches. Quality is a game that has been tested thoroughly before release not only for bugs but for balancing and difficulty. Quality is a game that has servers that work at launch. Quality is not having to release an "extended cut" free DLC because your game's ending was thrown together at the last minute to meet a deadline.

I don't know what things cost in the UK(I also don't know the relative worth or amount of inflation of the pound over the last 20 years), in the US prices have gone up since games started being made on CDs. The only time games were more expensive in my almost 30 years of gaming were console carts.

Developers make games because they love games? You could have fooled me considering it's blatantly obvious they don't even play their own games before shipping them off to retail. Yeah, the average mid-level programmer or artist may truly enjoy making and playing games, but they don't make the decisions. Executives make decisions. Publishers make decisions. You can't truly be this ignorant of the inner workings of the game industry can you?

Sequels have been around since before gaming, sure. The "lets see how quickly we can shove more COD in their faces" strategy of pumping out yearly sequels IS something relatively new. If you don't think it's bad for the industry to do this crap then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know what things cost in the UK(I also don't know the relative worth or amount of inflation of the pound over the last 20 years), in the US prices have gone up since games started being made on CDs. The only time games were more expensive in my almost 30 years of gaming were console carts.

Inflation of the GBP over the last 20 years is about 70%, roughly the same as inflation of the USD. Game prices were a lot less uniform in 1992 than they are now (full-price PC titles ranged from $35 to $70; I think one or two might have been even higher), so it's hard to pin down an average, but at worst, I guess the price of games has increased by about 30%. And that's not to mention that game prices have a much shorter tail today than 20 years ago: they drop a lot faster from release.

I'm not going to write an entire critique of ToR to prove a point. The game was terrible, it was unfinished and full of bugs, as are MOST games that come out these days.

Putting something in CAPS doesn't make it any more factual. Games are complex and the PC platform isn't a closed system. Patches are a reality of PC gaming and have been for many years. Ironically given your frustrations you'd probably enjoy your 'hobby' more on a console I suspect.

I don't know what things cost in the UK(I also don't know the relative worth or amount of inflation of the pound over the last 20 years), in the US prices have gone up since games started being made on CDs. The only time games were more expensive in my almost 30 years of gaming were console carts.

Developers make games because they love games? You could have fooled me considering it's blatantly obvious they don't even play their own games before shipping them off to retail. Yeah, the average mid-level programmer or artist may truly enjoy making and playing games, but they don't make the decisions. Executives make decisions. Publishers make decisions. You can't truly be this ignorant of the inner workings of the game industry can you?

*Chortles*

What none of the tens of thousands of game designers out there play games? Now whose being ignorant? Please take your PCgamer4life hipster BS to the escapist or Destructoid.

Sequels have been around since before gaming, sure. The "lets see how quickly we can shove more COD in their faces" strategy of pumping out yearly sequels IS something relatively new. If you don't think it's bad for the industry to do this crap then I don't know what to tell you.